Everything takes longer than it takes; 3 strikes & not out

[Judge Roy Bean]

Manant v. U.S.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xm ... -2007-CURR

Plaintiffs appear to argue that they can allege (in a Third Amended Complaint) that they were involved in ongoing "offer-in-compromise" proceedings under 26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(1)(B), and that government officials willfully or otherwise wrongfully disregarded certain provisions (e.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 7122(d)(2)(A) & (B), and/or 26 U.S.C. §§ 6301, 6303) "in connection with any collection of Federal tax." 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a). They seek to file a Third Amended Complaint in response to the Motion to Dismiss, to attempt to state such claims.
...
Accordingly, the court will allow Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint to attempt to assert a claim or claims under § 7433. The court cautions that a Third Amended Complaint should comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it must contain "simple, concise, and direct" factual allegations, as well as the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. It must allege sufficient facts to state a "plausible" claim, and clearly set forth separate counts for each cause of action. It should not contain argument, or unnecessary citations to irrelevant statutes such as the "Trading With the Enemy Act," or rhetoric regarding "war or hate crimes" (as was done in prior versions of the Complaint).

[ed. Bolding added]

[Gregg]

Can some lawyer explain to me why Judges let them file a case against

UNITED STATES, dba, CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants

I guess maybe the AUSA might just respond "hey, we're "The United States of America", and Sparky is trying to sue a private corporation which we have never heard of. Letting them come play their stupid word games and affix their particular delusions to an official document just gives them more credibility.

If I ruled the world I'd toss the case and sanction the numbnuts who tried to file it.

(on a tangent, I'd do the same with anything SMVFKADMNSMVP that was filed 'David Merrill', toss it out, bar him from filing anything else, he's not David Merrill and can't file stuff under an alias)

[David Merrill]

On your tangent Gregg:

All it takes is a little lawful money.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2259/t ... r82508.jpg
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3307 ... rected.jpg

[Pottapaug1938]

On your tangent Gregg:

All it takes is a little lawful money.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2259/t ... r82508.jpg
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3307 ... rected.jpg

David, you've tried to pass this BS off on us before, and it hasn't worked yet. It should be obvious to even you, by now, that we're not interested in yout stamped money or your snippets of legal documents, because they prove NOTHING. try something else, please.

Oh, by the way -- back in 1978, I went to court to change my name. At birth, my parents gave me a first and last name, but no middle name. After growing up with people looking at me funny because I didn't have a middle name, and typing things like "NMN" or "NMI" in forms where my middle name or initial were called for, I decided to do something about it when I was in my last year of law school and leanred how to do changes of name. I went into court as, say, "Pottapaug Dana"; and I left the courthouse with a certificate which, let's imagine, said "Pottapaug Pond Dana". The certificate said that this was my "true legal name".

I would imagine that the certificates of Colorado and the other states are very much the same; so you can see why I don't accept your foolishness about your name being "David Merrill" rather than "David Merrill Van Pelt". At common law, perhaps, you can CHANGE your name to "David Merrill"; but unless you comply with the laws regarding changes of name your legal name is still "David Merrill Van Pelt".

[grixit]

It's not that cut and dried in practice. My parents gave me 2 middle names, then never called me by anything but my 2nd middle. I never used the full name except for registration during my first few years of college. I didn't use it on my social security card or any bank accounts. I did use it on my drivers license, up to the second time i had to renew it-- i just dropped the other 2 names and haven't used them since.

Also, when Jesse "The Body" Ventura ran for governor of Minnesota, he didn't use his original name, even though he'd neve "legally" changed it. And he continued to use his wrestling name in office, even to sign bills.

So i personally support David's right to say how he wants to be known. It's the one thing that actually is within his power, unlike, say, changing the nature of the monetary system.

[bmielke]

It's not that cut and dried in practice. My parents gave me 2 middle names, then never called me by anything but my 2nd middle. I never used the full name except for registration during my first few years of college. I didn't use it on my social security card or any bank accounts. I did use it on my drivers license, up to the second time i had to renew it-- i just dropped the other 2 names and haven't used them since.

Also, when Jesse "The Body" Ventura ran for governor of Minnesota, he didn't use his original name, even though he'd neve "legally" changed it. And he continued to use his wrestling name in office, even to sign bills.

So i personally support David's right to say how he wants to be known. It's the one thing that actually is within his power, unlike, say, changing the nature of the monetary system.

I respectfully disagree that David has the right to drop his last name. At least totally, my name as it has appeared via harvester is Bill Mielke, however, while Mielke is my real last name Bill is a direvative of my middle name, I am a "III" as you can imagine all the good nick names were already taken so I came to be known as Bill, all through school even now I am Bill Mielke, not ******** ******** "Bill" Mielke, III, I would fully suppor his right to be know as Dave or D. Merrill Van Pelt, or Merry, or whatever so long as he keeps his true last name.

Jesse Ventura is a special case, his became famous using an alias, if Van Pelt does the same with David Merrill so be it, but last I checked he isn't famous.

[Demosthenes]

I changed my last name to a variation of my mother's family name back in 1982 while I was living in California. Under California law at that time, the only requirement was that you started using the name. No court order, no filings, nothing special. You just started using the name and had it changed on your social security records, bank accounts, and drivers license. From there, it was a slam dunk to get the name changed on my passport and other documents.
As long as you weren't committing fraud, you could change your name at whim.

Even today, all California requires is a simple form and a $40 fee to legally change your name to whatever you want.

[webhick]

Even today, all California requires is a simple form and a $40 fee to legally change your name to whatever you want.

Giggles DeAssWhoopin? Is that still available? God, I hope so.

.

[Pottapaug1938]

I changed my last name to a variation of my mother's family name back in 1982 while I was living in California. Under California law at that time, the only requirement was that you started using the name. No court order, no filings, nothing special. You just started using the name and had it changed on your social security records, bank accounts, and drivers license. From there, it was a slam dunk to get the name changed on my passport and other documents.
As long as you weren't committing fraud, you could change your name at whim.

Even today, all California requires is a simple form and a $40 fee to legally change your name to whatever you want.

In Massachusetts in 1978, the law was as you describe, except that we had the ability to file a name change petition with the probate court and get a certificate (as I did) which would smooth things out as far as getting my records, license etc. changed.

The thing is, I still had a last name, no matter what my name was. If I had been given the name Pottapaug Pond Dana at birth, and then had changed it to Pottapaug Pond, "Pond" would be my surname/last name. I would still be a member of the Dana family, but my surname would be Pond. Thus, as has been pointed out, David can change his name; but he has a surname/last name, whether it be Merrill or Van Pelt.

[Demosthenes]

The thing is, I still had a last name, no matter what my name was. If I had been given the name Pottapaug Pond Dana at birth, and then had changed it to Pottapaug Pond, "Pond" would be my surname/last name. I would still be a member of the Dana family, but my surname would be Pond. Thus, as has been pointed out, David can change his name; but he has a surname/last name, whether it be Merrill or Van Pelt.

What difference does it make whether your second name is a surname?

[LPC]

There is a statutory procedure for change of name in Pennsylvania, but it's been held to supplement, and not replace, the common law system, so you can still use whatever name you want, and it's your name, as long as you're consistent and not trying to defraud someone.

I was at a real estate settlement recently, and one of the parties asked the lawyer for the bank how she should sign her name, with or without a middle initial or middle name, and I was glad to hear him say that she should sign her name however she usually signs it, and he really didn't care.

Similarly, I often talk to people about wills, and when I ask for the name I should use, I often have to explain that I do NOT want the name that's on the birth certificate; what I want is the name that they commonly use and is on their bank accounts and other assets because that's the name that is going to be most useful in administering their assets.

Point of information: In most states, there is no law requiring (or even allowing) a married woman to take her husband's last name. I believe that, in most cases, women who start using their husband's last name are exercising their right at common law to change their name as they will, and the change is accepted as a matter of custom (or common law) and not because any statute explicitly allows it.

So the reference to a "legal name" confuses me, because I don't think that there is such a thing as a "legal name" for the same reason that there's no such thing as an *illegal* name. I'm also confused by statements about what last name someone can or can't use, because I don't know of any rule of law saying that a person can't change a last name as easily as a first name.

I know people like to give Van Pelt a hard time about his name, but if he says his name is David Merrill and he consistently uses the name David Merrill then his name really is David Merrill as far as I am concerned.

[Pottapaug1938]

There is a statutory procedure for change of name in Pennsylvania, but it's been held to supplement, and not replace, the common law system, so you can still use whatever name you want, and it's your name, as long as you're consistent and not trying to defraud someone.

I was at a real estate settlement recently, and one of the parties asked the lawyer for the bank how she should sign her name, with or without a middle initial or middle name, and I was glad to hear him say that she should sign her name however she usually signs it, and he really didn't care.

Similarly, I often talk to people about wills, and when I ask for the name I should use, I often have to explain that I do NOT want the name that's on the birth certificate; what I want is the name that they commonly use and is on their bank accounts and other assets because that's the name that is going to be most useful in administering their assets.

Point of information: In most states, there is no law requiring (or even allowing) a married woman to take her husband's last name. I believe that, in most cases, women who start using their husband's last name are exercising their right at common law to change their name as they will, and the change is accepted as a matter of custom (or common law) and not because any statute explicitly allows it.

So the reference to a "legal name" confuses me, because I don't think that there is such a thing as a "legal name" for the same reason that there's no such thing as an *illegal* name. I'm also confused by statements about what last name someone can or can't use, because I don't know of any rule of law saying that a person can't change a last name as easily as a first name.

I know people like to give Van Pelt a hard time about his name, but if he says his name is David Merrill and he consistently uses the name David Merrill then his name really is David Merrill as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps I find his name games irritating because he makes a fetish of his name being "David Merrill, of the family Van Pelt", or something like that. If he wants to be "David Merrill", then when he is in court and someone asks for David Van Pelt, he can simply say that he has exercised his common law right to change his name to David Merrill. Even better, he could petition for a legal change of name, and then his name would be "David Merrill" in every manner of speaking. Simple....

[grixit]

I changed my last name to a variation of my mother's family name back in 1982 while I was living in California. Under California law at that time, the only requirement was that you started using the name. No court order, no filings, nothing special. You just started using the name and had it changed on your social security records, bank accounts, and drivers license. From there, it was a slam dunk to get the name changed on my passport and other documents.
As long as you weren't committing fraud, you could change your name at whim.

Even today, all California requires is a simple form and a $40 fee to legally change your name to whatever you want.

In Massachusetts in 1978, the law was as you describe, except that we had the ability to file a name change petition with the probate court and get a certificate (as I did) which would smooth things out as far as getting my records, license etc. changed.

The thing is, I still had a last name, no matter what my name was. If I had been given the name Pottapaug Pond Dana at birth, and then had changed it to Pottapaug Pond, "Pond" would be my surname/last name. I would still be a member of the Dana family, but my surname would be Pond. Thus, as has been pointed out, David can change his name; but he has a surname/last name, whether it be Merrill or Van Pelt.

There are people who go by single names. A few years ago, one of them had to go to court over it, and the court declared that he could not be denied something just because he didn't put anything in the LNAME box.

[Pantherphil]

Here in the Maine Woods, you can still exercise your common law right to be called whatever you wish so long as no fraud is perpetrated. You can apply to a Probate Court to change your name on a simple application and payment of a filing fee. In some cases, the Court may require notice and hearing. This is occasonally an issue in cases involving efforts to change the names of children in parental rights or custody disputes.

But at a practical level, one of the offshoots of the post 9/11 homeland security initiatives and various identity theft and anti-fraud is that you can create a lot of problems for yourself if the names on your vital records are inconsistent. My mother-in-law got into several problems because her birth certificate, Social Security card, driver's license, and passport all had variant names. Birth certificate: Lucy Jane Smith; Social Security card: Jane Smith; Driver's license: Jane S. Doe; and Passport: Lucy Jane Doe. To the community at large she was just plain Jane. We had great difficulty in renewing her driver's license on account of the discrepancies and ultimately had to file an application with the Court to formally change her name to Jane S. Doe to satisfy the Department of Motor Vehicles. Medicare wouldn't process claims submitted on behalf of Jane Doe because the Social Security number belonged to Jane Smith. Never underestimate bureaucracy.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Van Pelt's purpose is one of deceit; he is simply attempting to conceal his past.

[Demosthenes]

But at a practical level, one of the offshoots of the post 9/11 homeland security initiatives and various identity theft and anti-fraud is that you can create a lot of problems for yourself if the names on your vital records are inconsistent.

I've only ever had one issue with changing my name. My father passed away last year, and I got a tiny death benefit check from the US government (veteran's death benefit) made payable to my birth name, a name I haven't used since I was 18. Since the government wouldn't recut the check, the bank ended accepting a photocopy of my high school yearbook page showing me with my original name, so that they could compare it to the photo on my current driver's license. It pays to bank at a private bank...

[Gregg]

Can you imagine trying to do that at BofA?

[The Observer]

MICHAEL JOSEPH MANANT; ANNETTE LYNNE MANANT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.

Release Date: NOVEMBER 20, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00566-JMS-KSC

MEMORANDUM /*/

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Michael Joseph Manant and Annette Lynne Manant appeal pro se from the district court's judgment in their action alleging that the Internal Revenue Service violated various statutes and regulations in collecting their accrued federal income tax liabilities for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010). We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissal of the Manants' action without prejudice was proper because the district court lacked jurisdiction in light of the Manants' failure to pursue an administrative claim before filing their action. See 26 U.S.C. section 7433(d)(1) (requiring taxpayers to exhaust administrative remedies as a prerequisite to filing an action for damages regarding improper tax collection); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1376-77 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under section 7433(d)(1) deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer's damages claims regarding improper tax collection under section 7433(a)).

In light of our disposition, we do not address the Manants' remaining arguments regarding the merits their claims. See Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990) (where the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it retains no power to make judgments as to the merits of the case).

The Manants shall bear the costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

/*/ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.